CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brunetti v. Cape Canaveral Shipping Co., SA

Peter Brunetti, a longshoreman, sued Cape Canaveral Shipping Company, S.A., a shipowner, for personal injuries. Canaveral moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) Section 33(b) because Brunetti had accepted compensation under a Memorandum of Informal Conference, which Canaveral contended operated as an assignment of his rights. The court, reexamining prior Second Circuit decisions in light of the Supreme Court's Pallas Shipping Agency Ltd. v. Duris (1983) and the Third Circuit's Costa v. Danais Shipping Co. (1983), determined that a Memorandum of Informal Conference, absent a formal compensation order, does not constitute an "award in a compensation order" sufficient to trigger the assignment provisions of LHWCA Section 33(b). Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Actassignment of claimscompensation ordersinformal conferencesummary judgment motionfederal statutory interpretationpersonal injury claimsthird-party liabilitymaritime lawworker compensation benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominguez v. Cove Ships, Inc.

The plaintiff, a longshoreman, sought damages for injuries on the defendant's ship. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act barred the suit because the plaintiff served the actual ship owner more than six months after accepting a compensation award. However, the plaintiff had commenced an action against a believed owner before the award, and was delayed in identifying the true owner due to the agent's failure to comply with discovery. The court held that the Act should not bar the plaintiff's action, citing principles of waiver or estoppel, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, emphasizing the Act's purpose was not to prevent diligent longshoremen from pursuing third-party claims.

LongshoremenHarbor Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party ActionStatute of LimitationsWaiverEstoppelDiscoveryShip OwnerAgent LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. 531567
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Yi Sun

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020, which denied her request to reopen two workers' compensation claims and seek an increase in benefits. Sun, a former jeweler technician and hotel housekeeper, had established claims in 2002 and 2008 for occupational bronchitis and work-related injuries, respectively, both resulting in permanent partial disabilities. She sought reclassification and emergency assistance due to worsened conditions and exhaustion of indemnity benefits. The Board denied her request, finding insufficient evidence of a material change in condition and untimely filing for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of medical documentation to support a change in her condition and her failure to meet the requirements for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3).

Reopening claimsPermanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityIndemnity benefitsExtreme hardshipReclassificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewMedical evidenceChange in condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dun Shipping Ltd. v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

Dun Shipping Ltd. filed a complaint to compel Hovensa L.L.C and Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation to arbitrate a maritime claim for contribution to costs incurred in refloating the M/T Knock Dun. Defendants petitioned to stay arbitration and for a declaratory judgment that the claim is not arbitrable, while Plaintiff petitioned to compel arbitration. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox recommended granting Defendants' petition and denying Plaintiff's petition, finding Dun Shipping not a principal to the Voyage Charter Party and no need for discovery regarding Hovensa's notice of the Charter Party. The District Court, after a de novo review, found a contested factual record regarding Dun Shipping's status as a party to the Charter Party and Hovensa's knowledge and acquiescence to its terms. Therefore, the Court granted limited discovery to both Plaintiff and Defendants on these respective issues and referred the matter back to Magistrate Fox for further proceedings based on the outcome of the discovery.

ArbitrationDiscoveryMaritime LawCharter PartyBill of LadingContract InterpretationAgency LawVessel GroundingGeneral Average ClaimFederal Arbitration Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1998

Greenidge v. Mundo Shipping Corp.

Plaintiffs Kathleen Greenidge and Wal-wyn Greenidge sued Mundo Shipping Corporation in New York State court for conversion and gross negligence after their automobile, entrusted to Mundo for shipment to the West Indies, was not returned. Mundo removed the action to federal court in the Eastern District of New York, asserting admiralty and federal question jurisdiction based on a bill of lading that allegedly incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The Greenidges moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that their claims were state law claims. The court found that neither admiralty nor federal question jurisdiction was established, concluding that COGSA does not completely preempt state law and that federal defenses do not create federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the Greenidges' motion to remand the case to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and dismissed Mundo's cross-motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The court also granted the Greenidges reasonable costs and expenses for the improvident removal.

Removal JurisdictionAdmiralty JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionCarriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)Saving to Suitors ClauseComplete PreemptionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful PleadingState Court RemandConversion Claim
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bellomo v. United Arab Shipping Co.(SAG)

Plaintiff Filippo Bellomo, a longshore worker, filed a lawsuit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act against United Arab Shipping Company. He claimed injuries to his right shoulder and elbow after falling on a sheet of ice hidden beneath snow on the deck of the M/V ALWATTYAH, owned by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no dangerous condition at the time of turnover or that any ice was an obvious hazard. The Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ice was present at turnover and if it constituted a latent hazard that the shipowner knew or should have known about.

Longshore and Harbor Workers ActSummary Judgment MotionShipowner NegligenceDuty of CareLatent HazardMaritime Personal InjurySlip and FallMaterial Fact DisputeFederal Court ProcedureStevedoring Operations
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00226
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Yi Sun v. State Ins. Fund

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020. The Board had denied her request to reopen two prior workers' compensation claims, citing insufficient evidence of a material change in her condition warranting reclassification and an untimely request for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted the absence of medical reports to support her claim of worsened conditions. Additionally, her request for extreme hardship redetermination was outside the statutory timeframe and she did not meet the necessary threshold of a greater than 75% loss of wage-earning capacity.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReclassificationExtreme HardshipIndemnity BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewMaterial Change in ConditionOccupational Bronchitis
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hroncich v. Sun Export Holding Corp.

Defendant shipowner Sun Export and codefendant Weeks Crane moved to dismiss an action brought by a longshoreman. They contended the action was not commenced within six months after the plaintiff settled a compensation claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which, they argued, assigned the right to sue to the employer or its insurer. The plaintiff asserted that his employer had ratified his commencement of the action, waived its right to sue, and agreed to be bound by the result. The court, referencing Rodriguez v Compass Shipping Co., acknowledged the statutory assignment but ultimately found that an employer is free to reassign or ratify an action brought by its employee. This reassignment or ratification does not violate the rule against assigning personal injury claims, leading the court to deny the defendants' motion.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActLHWCAStatutory AssignmentThird-Party ActionEmployer RatificationMotion to DismissPersonal Injury ClaimsSubrogationSix-Month RuleFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Four Points Shipping & Trading, Inc. v. Poloron Israel, L.P.

The case concerns a dispute over a canceled shipment of prefabricated housing parts. Plaintiff Four Points Shipping and Trading, Inc. sued Poloron Israel, L.P., and TMT Homes, Inc., for lost profits and out-of-pocket expenses. The core issue revolved around a contract between Four Points and Poloron, contingent on a separate manufacturing agreement becoming "effective," which the court interpreted as actual production capability, not just signing. Due to the manufacturer's financial difficulties, the parts were never produced. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the lost profits claim, citing contractual exculpatory clauses and the speculative nature of the damages. However, it denied summary judgment for both parties on the out-of-pocket expenses, allowing Four Points to pursue this claim if it can demonstrate it was misled by Poloron. The court also suggested alternative dispute resolution for the remaining issue.

Contract disputeMaritime lawNew York lawSummary judgmentLost profitsOut-of-pocket expensesBreach of contractContingent contractExculpatory clauseContract interpretation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKay v. Point Shipping Corp.

The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (Union) filed a motion to remand an action previously removed to federal court by Point Vail Company. The Union sought to confirm an arbitrator's award against Point Vail and Point Shipping Corporation regarding a collective bargaining agreement dispute. Point Vail opposed the remand, claiming Point Shipping was fraudulently joined, thus obviating its need to consent to removal. The District Court found no evidence of fraudulent joinder, noting that the Union sought relief against Point Shipping, whose potential liability was substantial despite an indemnity agreement. Consequently, the court ruled the removal petition defective due to Point Shipping's non-joinder and ordered the case remanded to the New York Supreme Court, while denying the Union's request for litigation fees.

Remand MotionFraudulent JoinderRemoval JurisdictionArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal CourtState CourtIndemnity AgreementUnion Dispute
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 172 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational